Wednesday, October 11, 2006

This Week's CFB Top 25 Ballot

So I've ripped the AP pollsters over the last week, put my first crack at a Top 25 out earlier this week, and even gotten into a blog feud over it. Now you can check out my final CFB Top 25 ballot for this week.

(Yes, Florida is No. 2 on my ballot. By the way, did you notice that ESPN College GameDay will be covering a Florida game for a second consecutive week this Saturday (at Auburn)? Ever remember THAT happening? UPDATE: Uh, apparently, it happened with Ohio St just this year. My bad!)

That being said, I'm a bit puzzled as to how you rank 2 loss LSU ahead of Boise State, Missouri and Rutgers. I know LSU's losses are to Florida and Auburn, but the bottom line is, they lost those games while the aforementioned teams are undefeated.

So what if they're undefeated. That's like saying "Texas is last year's NC, so they should be #1 until someone beats them." You take everything into account when ranking teams. Who lost to who, where, by how much, etc. Not just "Ok, all teams with a 0 in the loss column go to the top."

The only true indicator is wins and losses? Really? So if a team goes undefeated in a conference like the Sun Belt should be ranked higher than a team that loses 1 or even two games in a power conference like the SEC? Wow. Can't wait for the Akron-North Texas National Championship game under this system.

Ben, do you watch ESPN at all? The UF/Auburn game is ESPN's 2nd shot at the stupid FULL COVERAGE crap. ESPN gets two weekends per season where they get to pick the SEC game of the week instead of CBS. So, ESPN will be benefiting.

I don't see how you have West Virginia higher than Michigan. Sure they are both undefeated, but WV hasn't played anyone! Rutgers is undefeated too, and both of their schedules are about as strong as Gabe's baby-grip! I don't have a problem with WV in the top 10, but I don't see how they deserve to be ranked higher than Michigan. The only way they deserve to be higher than Michigan is because you are ranking them based on inertia - your forbidden criteria....

Those of you who say "So and so hasn't played anyone yet!" or "How can you rate a 2 loss team ahead of this team" or even "The true indicator is wins and losses on the field" can appreciate a ladder rating scale based only wins and losses, with strength of schedule already built in..

That's why I made one. I call this the Week 6 rankings because it's the rankings after 6 weeks have been played, and because there's no preseason ranking.

I like the idea, but the poll is supposed to be a snapshot of this week, showing who the best team is at the moment. Vegas is taking factors like future schedule strength when setting up the odds for "futures".

We can't do that on the poll because as we've seen, upsets happen and teams turn out to be "overrated". Isn't it funny when the media says something about a team being over rated (like when Fowler does it) and they are guilty of doing so in their AP ballot? (like when Fowler does it).

For those of you that think strenght of schedule shouldn't matter, I present to you the WVU mountaineers. If you go by the saragin ratings for strength of schedule, they have a weaker schedule then Montana, a 1-AA school. Seriously. When the BCS comes out there will be WVU fans whining like crazy, but they will be lucky to be in the top 10.

Who you play is so much more important than is being made out. There is absolutely no reason why West Virginia should be ranked high simply because we "play to win the game". They haven't proven that they are the better than most teams in the top 15. They almost lost to East Carolina...the season is way too short and there are way too many teams to leave out factors such as who you play and how well you play during those games. Michigan is a dominant team and has been so for the entire season, game in and game out. It is ridiculous to put them behind West Virginia. Several one loss teams are more deserving of a shot at the national championshion (especially by the time the season ends) than WV. It sucks for them that they play such an easy schedule but it is just as unfair to teams that actually play talented teams to exclude them from a shot at a national title because another team plays crap teams.

It's becoming borderline hilarious that you're taking such strong offense to a ranking system that is absolute and rule-based.

ND and Clemson are ahead of WVU because they have both played a vastly superior schedule than WVU in addition to also both having played an extra game to this point in the season.

The same goes for Navy who has played (and won) an extra game than Tulsa.

I'm not sure about Rutgers over Texas. I would have thought the tougher schedule would benefit Texas more. However.. a loss is about a 200 point rating swing. Instead of gaining points, you're losing them, so the fact that Texas is only 48 rating points behind Rutgers really says a lot.

Aside from continuing to get amusement over your fuming, you really need to get over yourself and deal with it. You come across like a jackass.

Freaky J,I liked the idea of your poll in principle until I saw that Tennessee is ranked several spots behind Cal. I don't know any human or computer that could put Cal ahead of Tenn as the Vols smacked them head to head. Both have played soild opponents, both are playin great right now, and both are puttin up huge points in their last few games. So explain the logic?

Richard, I've said it before, and I'll say it again...you're an idiot. Maybe you're just too simple to take into account anything other than single digit win/loss numbers. If you can't figure out that who you beat is as important as winning, NCAA football might not be the sport for you.

That statement is at least as subjective as this statement: "LSU is a better team than Rutgers."

One of those statements is based on a fairly empty state (wins and losses against completely different teams). You might as well say Rutgers are better than the Pittsbuergh Steelers, because 5-0 is obviously better than 3-1.

On the other hand, saying LSU is better than Rutgers is based on actual observation of the two teams playing the game of football. When teams don't play each other, the only way to even begin to guess how good they are in relation to each other is to actually watch the games. Which is why even a poll like the BlogPoll is so vastly superior to the Coaches' Poll.

One more thing I wanted to say. This ladder is based on every team having an equal chance to win the national championship at the very beginning of the year. Every team begins on equal footing. Where the ratings go after that is entirely up to the teams.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.